Are scientific theories inherently falsified?

[Genecks]

I got into this argument with a philosophy professor.

 

Basically, I read some Karl Popper, ok, and what I got from him is that theories cannot be true. They will eventually be over-ridden. Thus, I claimed that despite how much a person wants to think a theory is "right," it's ultimately going to be wrong. So, whenever you do put forth a theory, you have to recognize that's it's already wrong, because it's going to be over-ridden in the future by a newer theory, of course, which will be over-ridden and so on and so on....

 

What do you think?

[ydoaPs]

'Over-ridden' is a bit strong. Although, to some extent, he's right. Each advance just makes the prior version of whatever theory less wrong. That's not to say we have no clue what's going on; technology('applied science') is proof that that's wrong.

[Mr Skeptic]

But we also don't know for sure that it is wrong. Maxwell's equations, for example, are unlikely to be shown wrong. Same for Newton's laws of motion.

[CharonY]

It has been a long while since I read Popper but I am not sure whether the OP got his position right. He maintained that falsifiability is crucial to the scientific method. It does not mean that any theory is inherently wrong, but it is inherently falsifiable. Otherwise it is not a scientific theory. It does not necessarily mean that it will eventually be falsified, though.

[ajb]

The philosophy behind the OP is really that any theory is really a mathematical construction and thus it's relation to nature is subtle. It is not nature and thus it is not immediately obvious what is "true" or "false".

 

 

He maintained that falsifiability is crucial to the scientific method. It does not mean that any theory is inherently wrong, but it is inherently falsifiable. Otherwise it is not a scientific theory. It does not necessarily mean that it will eventually be falsified, though.

 

That is pretty much my understanding of Popper's ideas. Any theory should make some predictions that can, at least in principle be tested against nature. If the theory does not agree well (this depends on what you consider well or not) with nature then it is considered to be a bad theory. If it agrees well then it is considered a good theory.

[pioneer]

Rational theories, based on math logic or verbal logic will tend to last longer; Newton. Empirical theories, tend to change faster, because they don't have to be in touch with cause and effect to have practical value. They only have to appear to fit the data.

 

For example, ancient astrology could be used to predict eclipses and the position of the planets. This is because the data they had collected was good. However, the theory they attached to the data was connected to the gods of mythology. They arranged the mythology around the data, to create a practical system that worked quite well. The data was sound, which is why it worked. However, even mythology, if attached just right, can lead to practical results and the impression of validity (in the short term).

 

If we look at the above empirical mythology theory, even though it did give good results and could make predictions, there was a logic flaw up front that the age of "reason" made clear. Eventually all empirical theory is challenged with its own "age of reason". The logic theories, deal with the "up front logic " at the get go, so they tend to last longer. They won't use a mythology if it is illogical even if it appears to fit the data.

[jimmydasaint]

I agree with the posts which agreed that falsifying a theory is a type of 'truth' and leads to an increase in understanding the experiment. Eventually, by falsifying and modifying the experiment, it leads to a truth about nature. I think this is called the hypothetico-deductive method. http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/3b.html For example, if you are examining the effect of mineral deficiency on plant growth, the experimenter would take away one nutrient at a time and see the effects. Others would reproduce the experiment and check your results against their own to see if the results were resproducible. You would now be half way towards a theory about the effects of nutrient deficiency on plant growth.

 

If you look around you, you will find that educational theory was founded on the same basis - called the Piagetian Spiral after the educationalist Jean Piaget. http://http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18582094.html

 

However, there is a limit to such deduction and this is seen in the field of human behaviour where the experimental method fails to meet the needs of human society. Tinkering with the systems of society which should guarantee happiness for all, or most, human beings have failed due to their short-sightedness and reliance on trial and error. We can all see the lamentable effects on education, health and politics of the experimental method.

[pioneer]

Statistical studies are useful and can lead to important practical results. But many of these are based on blind testing, which means one is not suppose to see. "Pay no heed to the man behind the curtain." What we have is a black box with input and output. As long as the black box remains closed, we can make up any reasonable theory and nobody can say this is wrong, thanks to the curtain of math.

 

For example, we could use the black box approach with ancient astrology. With the black box closed, so nobody can see the theory behind the math curtain, so even this mythology works fine. If we open the black box, the mythology has problems with respect to its main premises. The amateur does not have the background to open that box, so the results appear real. The scientists who has learned to see inside that particular box, can see the faulty premises even if it appears to work.

 

The Age of "enlightenment" , added light to all those mysterious black boxes of pre-science. The alchemists could predict chemical reactions using their own mythological parallel. As long as they had the black box closed, and could make such good predictions, all seemed real. Science opened up the black box and looked inside to see atoms and molecules and faulty mythological premises.

[Genecks]

It has been a long while since I read Popper but I am not sure whether the OP got his position right. He maintained that falsifiability is crucial to the scientific method. It does not mean that any theory is inherently wrong, but it is inherently falsifiable. Otherwise it is not a scientific theory. It does not necessarily mean that it will eventually be falsified, though.

 

Yes, but if it's falsifiable, then that means it's not true. Because something that is true cannot be false. Thus, the scientific theory that is falsifiable undergoes the logical mishap of already being false rather than true.

 

The work I read was this: "Science: Conjectures and Refutations" by Karl Popper

Edited April 18, 2010 by Genecks

[D H]

Yes, but if it's falsifiable, then that means it's not true. Because something that is true cannot be false.

Not at all! Another word for falsifiable is "testable". You are misinterpreting things here.

 

Relativity is falsifiable because it says, among others, that the speed of light is the same to all observers. That suggests an experiment: Measure the speed of light under varying circumstances. If the observed values are inconsistent with the hypothesis of a constant speed of light you have just disproved relativity. The only problem is, no experiment has done that.

 

What Popper was trying to do was to distinguish science from non-science. Non-scientific statements are so nebulous, so vague, that there is no way to prove them wrong. Go listen to practically any politician speak for examples of nebulous, vague statements. Science has to make precise, testable predictions of the outcomes of experiments. Theorists hope the experiments motivated by their theories are consistent with the theories. Experimentalists (sometimes) hope they can prove those uppity theorists wrong.

[Genecks]

Not at all! Another word for falsifiable is "testable". You are misinterpreting things here.

 

Relativity is falsifiable because it says, among others, that the speed of light is the same to all observers. That suggests an experiment: Measure the speed of light under varying circumstances. If the observed values are inconsistent with the hypothesis of a constant speed of light you have just disproved relativity. The only problem is, no experiment has done that.

 

Funny. I actually know someone working on that. I think I understand why she's doing research on the visual nervous system. Something about how light travels differently in each area, thus one eye might receive light slower/faster than the other.

 

Well, in that work, Popper says testable or falsifiable. If something were testable and falsifiable, then I would see a different case for the ordeal.

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes, but if it's falsifiable, then that means it's not true. Because something that is true cannot be false. Thus, the scientific theory that is falsifiable undergoes the logical mishap of already being false rather than true.

 

That's false. Falsifiable means that something could be shown to be false by experiment, if it is in fact false. You can't make a meaningful, predictive statement about the universe if it is not falsifiable. If you make a meaningful predictive statement about the universe that happens to be true, it is still falsifiable (were one of the predictions it made incorrect it would be false) but in practice will never be falsified because it is true. However, we can't know that.